rocketeer

On 5/10/2022 at 8:02 PM, Beer said:

It doesn't matter for whom Oryx works or whom he supports. The point is that majority of the documented losses on his blog are real. Most of them have gigantic letters Z and V written on them and a large part of the machinery is also exclusively used only by Russia.

Now that I stopped laughing, here's the deal buddy.

Painting the letter Z on your wrecked hardware is bordering on standard procedure in Ukrainian Armed Force and National Guard. That's what they do whenever they have the time.

I'm not even talking about the absolute idiots that ultimately ended up costing Ukraine (the country) ¾ of it's economy and good chunk of the territory — the so-called "Ukrainian cyber army".

The reason to why LostArmour had to close the database is that the contents were simply exploited to throw in even more fakes after minor photoshopping. Or video editing for that matter.

Which makes the overwhelming majority of Oryx database simply worthless, as the kills cannot be reliably attributed. But there should be reason why this genius was kicked the hell out of LostArmour, if memory serves? 😂

3 hours ago, Atokara said:

Regardless where does he even give analysis on any of the losses he posts? He literally just posts the photos with dates and compiles it all in one place which is about as objective as you can get.

Enjoy your read.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/12/a-monument-of-victory-bayraktar-tb2.html?m=1

As to accuracy and impartiality of his reporting, i personally advised him to seek military education when i got fed up with him declaring tanks as "destroyed" on the grounds of them getting hit by glorified petard, logging highly dubious kills on unverifiable evidence, intentionally misattributting kills to his waifu, so on, so forth, all the time, by the bucketloads.

3 hours ago, Atokara said:

Also if what you're saying qualifies someone on the subject, one of the largest anti-Oryx voices is a guy literally named armchair warlord who tried to claim that a T-72 Obr. 2016 picture was from the war in 2014, found 5 actual errors (that have been corrected) out of thousands, then hid his profile .

Bluntly speaking, i know a bunch of great defence tech experts whom have no military background of their own.

What makes them different from Oryx is that they don't think themselves entitled to be having an opinion on something that requires, for example, 7 years worth of only formal military education to qualify for sitting in the corner when experts are talking.

22 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

If you judge by Oryx list then yes, image is going to be distorted. 

Borderline off-topic or not, it seems like good idea to remind the audience that Oryx is [dis-]information laundering operation, not too dissimilar in concept from the Bellingcat.

Everything it has to say just about anything should be taken with metric crap ton of salt. Besides having no integrity to speak of, these people have no idea what they're talking about, having no military education or experience.

TL;DR: Judging anything by Oryx lists is only marginally less counter-productive than straight up buying into the 'analysis' they helpfully provide. Don't.

Maiden employment of the novel 🇷🇺  'Zemledeliye' remote minelayer system, Kharkov area.

https://youtu.be/p0RIQm92Vqs

🇺🇦 'Buk-M1' TELAR gets hit by large-caliber guided projectile around Kiev, with spectacular results.

https://youtu.be/LOhvcjHdTK8

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Russian claims are about the same as US casualties during the costliest year of Vietnam, so yeah they seem really plausible to me.

*shrug*

Your claim in and of itself is invariably¹ based in a gigantic pile of utter horsesh*t, produced by/for Ukrainian side. So yeah, it really seems like something to be taken at face value.

I find the claims of Russian MoD plausible, with aforementioned caveats, because a) they match my expectations, and b) i don't any reasons not to trust myself.

It's my expectations, after all.

¹ — invariably, bc there's next-to-no alternate sources of information.

12 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

I don’t think anyones said “welcome to the forum” yet, so Welcome to the Forum! I hope you read the forum posting guidelines on the general discussion sub-forum, and have a responsibly good time 

Thank you! Can't say i already read everything you mentioned, but i read enough to get the general idea.

I like that general idea.

UPD: Chaff or decoys could be support measures or countermeasures depending on the specifics. If you want 'active stealth measures', think active camouflage and electronic warfare (masking, active cancellation, etc).

On 3/24/2022 at 6:34 PM, LoooSeR said:

15k dead is way too many for this operation, especially when in last 2-3 weeks we were not doing any advances. In first days, when huge amount of dead were posted, MoD claimed 600 killed and 1.5k wounded. Amount of dead filmed that i saw from those days were about 100-150 killed. 15k dead would mean around 50-70k wounded (with ~40/60 and ~20/80 ratio of wounded to killed), which is half or 2/3rds of total amount of forces that were positioned around Ukraine before 24th of Febr, which will mean that all invading troops were either killed or wounded. Frontline would collapse and Ukrainian troops would have been already in Crimea if this was a case.

🇷🇺 MoD personnel casualty statistics:

March 2: 498 KIA, 1591 WIA;

March 25: 1351 KIA, 3825 WIA.

The casualties among allied, non-mil and mercenary troops presumably aren't included, as per usual practice nowadays.

All things considered, the figures seem uncharacteristically plausible. Ukrainian extraordinary claims, though, are anything but. Especially considering how easy it would be to back them up with extraordinary evidence if they indeed had any bearing in reality...

Even if we are to assume casualty evacuation by means of teleporting stretches and invisible MEDEVACs, the capacity of medical facilities isn't infinite.

As to NATO 'intelligence', the assessments of a basically "cheerleading squad" are hardly worth serious consideration by sheer plain default.

For what it's worth, i'd like to award you twenty internet points for having bothered. I mean it.

That doesn't mean the final outcome is something to write home about, sadly. It's stupidly redundant a solution for the other problem.

The levels of redundancy:

1) Redundant — Low Observable Principles, Stealth Aircraft andAnti-Stealth Technologies by MAJ K. Zakidis, 2LT A. Skondras, 2LT C. Tokas of Hellenic Air Force, published in the Journal of Computations & Modelling, vol.4, no.1, 2014, pages 129-165.

2) Rather Redundant — The Radar Game: Understanding Aircraft Survivability by Rebecca Grant, published by Mitchell Institute Press, 2010.

3) Stupidly Redundant —

Radar Energy Warfare and the Challenges of Stealth Technology by Bahman Zohuri, published by Springer, 2020.

These, of course, are isolated examples; the topic is extremely well covered in literature.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Moreover, why reinvent the wheel that doesn't work, as there's no shortage of the PowerPoint Warfighters who measure aircraft observability in the marbles and golf balls and other outrageous nonsense?

Solution: Assume 'stealth' a condition to be tactically acquired instead of inherent property of aircraft and see what happens.

On 3/13/2022 at 5:34 PM, Alzoc said:

That's what you get when one partner impose the drone to have a twin engine and be able to insert itself in civilian airspace.

But that's something we have to swallow if we want to kickstart European independence on an industrial level (which is badly needed as reminded by current events).

If that's something you'd have to swallow in hopes to achieve industrial independence, i suggest to either resurrect De Gaulle or give the program managers Kurchevsky's* treatment.

Not that i think i know better than those it's actually supposed to concern; i just honestly don't see how else you may succeed.

* — brought up on charges of criminal overpromising and underdelivering and summarily executed.